He offers two defenses so blatantly contradictory it takes a university president not to see them: First, that he was acting properly demanding the hiding of a cross inside a chapel, and second, that he was also acting properly in allowing university funds to support various sex-exhibits, as his job requires him to promote "openness" and "free expression" and other gay shit of this nature.

He then goes to the standard bullshit of anyone brought down by grassroots peevishness: That mean people wrote mean things about him, and specifically, about his "wife and daughters."

I don't doubt that crap like that was written. But it's just so blatantly dishonest to pretend that these were anything other than a few nasty emails written by the usual cranks and maniacs. Rather than admitting that his critics, most of whom are sober and civil, had something of a point, he claims this is only a "victory" for the death-threat pissants and death-wish losers.